Slashdot Mirror

You mean like indian file http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/INDIANFILE

He said that it would have been a propaganda coup for an enemy of the United States if they could have produced that document signed by him, and so he couldn't do it. I know of no other way to succinctly characterize that.

Well, lets look at this a little then. Propaganda is something people use to impress a certain position onto people for an implied benefit or reaction. That is my definition but most forms of advertising could be included into it too. Most other definitions of propaganda are similar enough to match mine.

So he basically said it would allow the enemy to strengthen their position against the United states if he would have signed a confession. It really says nothing about egg on his face or saving face, it is about not losing the war or jeopardizing others fighting it on their side. You do understand that not aiding the enemy isn't the same thing as attempting to save face right? Saving face is simply an attempt not to look bad (sometimes against the facts) so you can keep your reputation, dignity or prestige. Granted, he would be attempting to not look bad, but for reasons such as saving American lives and not allowing the enemy to influence collaborators to their benefit. This is an especially bold distinction seeing how the North Vietnamese won the war in the media and not on the battle field. They were set to give up until news broadcasters stateside started declaring that we have lost. Then all they did was hand in until we left.

BTW, here is another definition of saving face If you happen to know of one that is different enough, please post it. But under the definition I know, you are attempting to say that McCain didn't sign the statement because he didn't want to degrade himself. But by your own supplying of his statement, he implies that he didn't want to give the enemy ammunition to use against us. It really says two different things to me. I would hope it does you to.

It's not a panacea, but you haven't provided an example where diplomacy has actually failed. Five years ago everybody and his brother knew we we going to have to bomb the shit out of the DPRK, but we haven't because they have agreed to international monitoring. The Iraqi strike into Kuwait was neither motivated by craziness (and, might I add, it is disingenuous to pretend so) nor was it a failure of diplomacy, as was indicated by the size and breadth of the coalition built to repel Iraqi forces. The diplomatic, rather than military, solution also prevailed in the pure political arena: rather than risk occupying Iraq interminably, we put Saddam on a pretty short leash and walked away, a compromise arrived at through diplomatic means.

No, it failed. The entire sideways thing failed and NK was the same problem they where before. Clinton gave then agriculture technology for their suspension of nuclear programs. We find out later that they never suspended anything. Our diplomacy that you say worked was convincing China to tell them that if they didn't appease us in the matter, they would help the US invade and bomb or throw Kim Jong-il out. The threat of violence isn't diplomacy. Working with China might have been so I guess you could say diplomacy worked. But it isn't diplomacy to North Korea that worked. It was the threat of violence with the only ally they had in the area stepping away from them.

It is worth pointing out that what he gave you is called 'truth'. Would you support open border policies? No? Then the problem really isn't 'illegal immigration', its just plain old immigration. There *is* no basis for non-economic solutions to the problem termed illegal immigration *except racism*, and that's not a popular thing to say, which is the old catch-22:

People keep saying "nut job". I don't think you understand what that means.

I'm glad you feel that you can correct francis bacon's english, but your response is unknowingly funny. You see Francis Bacon was noted for his discourses on the use of syllogism in argument. Your insult to Bacon is a pure example of syllogism. 1) I think the english phrase is bad 2) francis bacon used the phrase. 3) ergo francis bacon spoke bad english. Nice, bacon would be proud of such an elegantly bad example. I doff my quilled chapeau to you!

Ah, a spelling Nazi
.
Let's see how many sources cite my spelling:
Here's the first few
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/apposable/
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apposable/
http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/APPOSABLE/
http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/apposable/
http://www.alphadictionary.com/wordnet/a/apposable .html/
http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/Appos able/
What did we learn in class today ?
There is more than one 'correct' way to spell many words

Some words do not exist in modern English - "shew" (show, past tense) is essentially extinct, which means that you've got to watch context to ensure that what you think might be a difference in pronounciation isn't a different word altogether. Shew was still used in popular novels and science texts in the mid 1960s, but I believe it was dead by the time the 1970s rolled around.

Widdling
Whittling

While your statement may be true, I don't think it comes out the way you intended it. And if you did intend it that way, you're a sick little puppy.

or here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here.

Time to civilize yourself: he was right, it is 'spelt'.

Just to nitpick - freeness (look right at the bottom of the first 'free' entry) is a word. (Also here and here.)

Nope, it is definately COmpressor/DECompressor. See!